At the 1870 Berlin Conference, Africa was divided up by the great powers of the day. The borders that were decided were arbitrary in their nature (to put it very politely). As the European powers began the process of decolonisation, so the arbitrary borders in 1870 were kept intact under the principle of International Law known as “uti possidetis”. The essence of this principle is that the territory captured by belligerent states at the end of a conflict remains the territory of the possessor unless this position is varied by treaty.
One of the more interesting applications of uti possidetis in history resulted in the British gaining possession of Manhattan Island from the Dutch and the Dutch gaining possession of Suriname from the British. Imagine … citizens of the land of the free and the home of the brave all speaking Dutch!
But back to Africa …
The Organisation for African Unity (or OAU), the precursor to the African Union, had as one of its founding principles the principle of uti possidetis. In essence, colonial boundaries would remain intact and should not be changed. It was perhaps hoped that if boundaries remained intact, African states would not fragment into smaller political units during the decolonisation process. The territorial integrity of African states has been consistently (and sometimes brutally) enforced since the decolonisation process began in the late 1950s. Examples that spring to mind include Biafra and Katanga.
Interestingly, South Africa has not been immune to having its territorial integrity unchallenged. Witness in the 1980s the claim by the Swazi government to certain parts of modern Mpumalanga province.
Break-ups and divorces are never easy and are invariably messy affairs, no matter how amicable the parties are. Now imagine a state going through “divorce” proceedings.
Next year the principle of uti possidetis will be challenged on, perhaps its grandest scale in modern African history, when citizens in southern Sudan will vote in a referendum that could see the secession of southern Sudan from the greater Sudanese state and become Africa’s newest country. The Sudanese government agreed to the holding of this referendum as one of the terms of the peace treaty that ended the civil war in Sudan, arguably Africa’s longest running civil war.
At present there are a host of issues surrounding the voting process. For example, registration of voters has barely commenced. Also it is unclear whether the Sudanese government will respect the outcome of the vote in the south.
The referendum also carries important economic consequences for Sudan. The majority of the oilfields within the Sudanese state are to be found in the south. As part of the break-up of the current Sudanese state the “northern” Sudanese government has indicated that it would want a portion of the oil revenues that the “south” Sudanese government generates — a form of alimony, if you will.
There are a couple of elements that will need to be looked at, if and when the vote occurs.
- Will the Sudanese government respect the outcome of the vote?
- How peaceful will the transition be?
With regards to the second consideration, based on available news reports it appears that the peoples of southern Sudan are a highly fractured body politic. The issue of how peaceful the transition will be thus extends not only to how the government in Khartoum will react, but also, will there be a violent jostling for power in the new state? While having a “Mandela” type figure that can unite a people undergoing a political transition is not a pre-requisite for a peaceful transition, such a figure could play an important role in cooling political tempers during such political upheaval. There does not appear to be any such central character that could fulfil such a role in the south of Sudan.
A further important consideration is how other states will react to the creation of a “South Sudan”. Could this event spark the imaginations of minority peoples in other African states or embolden other peoples (such as the Ogoni in Nigeria) to seek independence?
These are indeed interesting times for the African continent and the next few months will be an important indication of where the continent is perhaps heading from the perspective of territorial integrity.
Perhaps the people of Hout Bay may finally have legitimate use for those passports they’ve been printing all these years?
Nice article!
The colonists are blamed for drawing lines unrealistically and setting citizens up against one another, but in Ivory Coast, for instance, this gives northerners access to the sea, which a horizontal division across two present countries would have denied them.
I felt the same thing happening in SA in 1994, with the nine provinces. We now have poor provinces and richer provinces, which leaves the people of provinces like the Northern Cape, Eastern Cape, North-West and Limpopo with some serious economic disadvantages to overcome. It makes poor people gravitate to the cities on a greater scale than previously, seeking work. Instead of trying to cap senior private-sector salaries (which the private sector should anyway have the grace to do voluntarily), the state would do better to go back to fewer provinces and save over 50% of those wasted provincial salaries. At the same time, it could weed out the most corrupt politicians and I’d bet Treasury would then have far more to allocate to housing services. Perhaps it could even build a few orphanages, old-age homes and other neglected items like hospitals, power plants and schools. We might even be able to fix the water problems?
Well, I can dream, can’t I?
I wonder if this would have happened had the Sudanese government not chosen to trade the oil with China as oppossed to the USA.
The truth is that the country is being divided because of American imperilaist interests. It has happened before in history (Korea, Germany etc), nothing new here.
You know, Canada’s borders were created when the UK negotiated with the US. We don’t complain that we need a few more degrees latitude because most of the country was permafrost, we just got on with it.
How long will it continue that Africa blames everything on everyone else?
The first 30 or so words in a “story” should grab the attention of the reader, Journalism students are taught. What grabbed my attention was the fact that the author of this story claims that the Berlin conference at which 14 European nations and the United States of America met to divide parts of Africa among themselves took place in 1870. Permit me to rectify the incorrect date: This conference took place in Berlin from 15 to 26 November 1884 (some negotiations went on until February 1885). Wrong information are often the cause of the reader losing interest in the article.
Emperialism is not over yet and anyone who tells you otherwise is living under a rock.
Talk about the oil made me think of (operation Iraqi Liberation), and what does that spell? O, I L. Smirks.
“Komuredhi” has a point. It does seem that the US’s enemies always have an internal issue.
Warren, I believe you are now a naturalized African or how else can we hear such truths from a ‘civilized’ brother.
Seriously colonialism takes the blame for most of the continents problems but Africans have not made things better over the years. The relationship between the state and its citizenry has not improved due to constant dissappointments, greed and corruption on the part of the political elite. What we have on this continent is everyone seeking for what they believe is their right and share of the national cake.
The bottom line is self interest not tribal, religious or ethnically motivated greed. Patriotism is often used to pave they way to national vaults.